On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Laurent Wandrebeck <l.wandrebeck at gmail.com> wrote: > Outside more up-to-date question, here is my own experience with jfs/xfs. > The bigger the files with JFS, the slower it is. > XFS tends to get similar performance, whatever the filesize is. > I've had data corruption with both. The thing is, I don't know where > it comes from with JFS, with XFS *do* *not* *ever* run a box without > an UPS. Unclean shutdown will always eat some of your data. > I've been happy with ext3 (no data corruption ever happened) but its > speed is behind the first two. > Supposedly ext3 has sped up with the 2.6 kernels. http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html The only thing I don't like about ext3 is the fsck. On relatively small filesystems, it's an annoyance. But on huge filesystem, 500-1000GB, a system may take a long, long time to come back up. -- Jiann-Ming Su "I have to decide between two equally frightening options. If I wanted to do that, I'd vote." --Duckman "The system's broke, Hank. The election baby has peed in the bath water. You got to throw 'em both out." --Dale Gribble "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." --Joseph Stalin